Apple: we could settle patent fights if others would "invent their own stuff"

Apple announced a record second fiscal quarter on Tuesday, but had some extra comments to offer during the call about whether it would ever settle its patent disputes and the company's thoughts on merging the iPad with the MacBook.

I can see room for a fridge with a built in computer, and barcode scanner or RFID chip reader.And the scanner can scan things as I put them away in the fridge after shopping, and scan them when I take them out.It keeps track of what I have in the fridge, and can suggest recipes based on what's in the fridge, plus I can specify a time for how long I have to prepare/cook the food, and it will give the most appropriate suggestion.

It can also keep track of how long something has been in the fridge for, and will notify you when the expected use by date is, so that you can use the food before it goes off.

So will they be handing their PC business off to Xerox PARC, and the iPod to Soundblaster?

You know that they licensed the PARC technology from Xerox, right? Soundblaster (aka Creative) is a less dishonest point, though I think I would argue for Diamond having created that market. And I'm not sure any iPod looked/acted line a clone of a Rio. Maybe?

I will say, the two smartphone platforms I was most excited about where the Pre/WebOS and Windows Phone 7. No mistaking either of those for iPhones in my opinion. Granted, I didn't get on with WebOS because I wasn't sure if it'd go anywhere, and got onboard with WP7 even though I knew it was a gamble...

So will they be handing their PC business off to Xerox PARC, and the iPod to Soundblaster?

You know that they licensed the PARC technology from Xerox, right? Soundblaster (aka Creative) is a less dishonest point, though I think I would argue for Diamond having created that market. And I'm not sure any iPod looked/acted line a clone of a Rio. Maybe?

Apple didn't directly license the technology as they did not actually use any of Xerox's intellectual property. They gave Xerox some stock in acknowledgment that they got the idea from Xerox research group.

So Apple will settle, but not with Google, not with Android. They'll only settle with the individual device manufacturers who actually own enough patents to fight back. And that's different from any other company in the world, how?

Of course, Apple is using mobile-device IP created and owned by Google (not Motorola) in their iProducts. Notifications are just one area, there are others. As Google expands their Android patent portfolio I suspect Apple will have no choice but to settle with the entire Android ecosystem, no matter who makes the actual devices.

In other words, nothing has changed. Apple still isn't ready to settle with Android, not yet. Business as usual, nothing to see here.

A hot topic? Does someone actually think this is a good idea? I can't imagine a worse fate for the MacBook Air than to converge with a tablet. It's the best computer I've ever had for research/coding work, and to be frank, maybe I haven't payed enough for the right apps, but I've been thoroughly disappointed with iOS. It's like the 1990's shareware era all over again — the free versions are shockingly crappy and loaded with ads, and they're supposed to entice you into dropping a few bucks for the real thing.

So Apple will settle, but not with Google, not with Android. They'll only settle with the individual device manufacturers who actually own enough patents to fight back.

Apple and Google/Android don't have any disputes as far as I can tell? How can you settle when there's no dispute? It seems to me Apple is mostly going after companies who took android and modified it to be more similar to iOS, and then put it on hardware that's also quite similar to apple's hardware.

Notice one of the "settlement" conditions is an assurance they will "invent their own stuff" in future. That's not a company trying to make money off a lawsuit, that's a company who honestly believes their competitor is violating their intellectual property.

Apple haven't actually innovated in any way, they have just taken existing ideas, approached them at the right time with good industrial design, and sold them to the masses.

There is nothing which Apple makes themselves, they just assemble the parts everyone else makes in terms of hardware. Their only way to innovate is through software, but apart from making an ecosystem lock, they haven't done much to really innovate in that area either. They take ideas, refine them, and market them. Very successfully.

So will they be handing their PC business off to Xerox PARC, and the iPod to Soundblaster?

You know that they licensed the PARC technology from Xerox, right? Soundblaster (aka Creative) is a less dishonest point, though I think I would argue for Diamond having created that market. And I'm not sure any iPod looked/acted line a clone of a Rio. Maybe?

Apple didn't directly license the technology as they did not actually use any of Xerox's intellectual property. They gave Xerox some stock in acknowledgment that they got the idea from Xerox research group.

He was seriously waving the red cape in front of the internets, no question.

TheAce-MGT wrote:

If it wasn't for companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc iPhones wouldn't exist because you did not create any of the technology required to actually make a wireless device.

Either they have patent protection that will make them money from Apple's products (or allow them to stop Apple from making them) or they don't. If they do, well more power to them. What they don't have is some sort of moral right to rip off Apple's similarly protected work just because they were in the industry first.

So will they be handing their PC business off to Xerox PARC, and the iPod to Soundblaster?

Have you actually ever seen the Xerox PARC project. It inspired ideas and a direction but it looked nothing like what Mac OS ended up being.

More importantly, Apple paid Xerox for the use of their ideas. I see that as the way it's supposed to work.

Xerox was allowed to invest $1M in Apple stock ahead of IPO and a year later that stock was worth $17.6M, it was a great monetary win for Xerox's management who considered personal computers unsellable and was considering closing down the projects after their own foray had failed.

Apple haven't actually innovated in any way, they have just taken existing ideas, approached them at the right time with good industrial design, and sold them to the masses.

There is nothing which Apple makes themselves, they just assemble the parts everyone else makes in terms of hardware. Their only way to innovate is through software, but apart from making an ecosystem lock, they haven't done much to really innovate in that area either. They take ideas, refine them, and market them. Very successfully.

He was seriously waving the red cape in front of the internets, no question.

TheAce-MGT wrote:

If it wasn't for companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc iPhones wouldn't exist because you did not create any of the technology required to actually make a wireless device.

Either they have patent protection that will make them money from Apple's products (or allow them to stop Apple from making them) or they don't. If they do, well more power to them. What they don't have is some sort of moral right to rip off Apple's similarly protected work just because they were in the industry first.

Well, once all the lawsuits settle we'll know where that actually ends up, since Apple was not willing to pay proper FRAND rates for Samsung I believe (They didn't want to have to pay retroactive royalties, just future royalties which got them in trouble with one of the German courts, as it negates FRAND)

Point was, Apple cant say that they are creating everything if they're standing atop other peoples work themselves.

[...]Notice one of the "settlement" conditions is an assurance they will "invent their own stuff" in future. That's not a company trying to make money off a lawsuit, that's a company who honestly believes their competitor is violating their intellectual property.

No (public) company should simply continue a costly patent war solely for idealistic reasons. Apple thinks they have money to gain from the war (licensing fees), and they think the fees will cover the cost of litigation and then some.

So will they be handing their PC business off to Xerox PARC, and the iPod to Soundblaster?

Have you actually ever seen the Xerox PARC project. It inspired ideas and a direction but it looked nothing like what Mac OS ended up being.

More importantly, Apple paid Xerox for the use of their ideas. I see that as the way it's supposed to work.

PARC wouldn't have ever gotten near the point of a GUI if every development along the way had been patented, licensed and restricted. The PARC GUI model was the product of an open, collaborative body of work that expanded into academia, government-funded research and private institutions. If our current IP system was in place in 1970, our best interfaces would resemble that of a TI-81.